There are election deniers running in almost every state in the US.

[Harry Bosch]

Jason: you always attack one side (democrats, Ukraine, Nato, or whatever) then are surprised when people assume that you favor the other side.

There is only one side on this forum, so who am I supposed to argue with?

The only neocon on this forum (a seer of some sorts apparently with a racist screen name) stopped posting regularly, and when he did post he pretended he was the opposite and people fell for the act. The few conservatives on this forum, while not my allies, tend to get banned right quick.

Yea, there aren't many conservatives on this forum. But not many people on the very far left either (like socialists). I remember "Communist Dave" many years ago. Couldn't be a person more opposite of me. But we actually got along. We disagreed but were respectful. But he was banned. The issue here is sometimes those on the more extreme side get very upset and can't argue without making it personal. We disagree a lot, but I'm glad to hear your opinion and hope that you don't go away.

 

[steve_bank]

Well Jason, I am an independence centrist who runs afoul of the left on the forum from time to time. One told me I am entirely wrong on all my postsI have on social issues.

So what, it is what the forum is about.

Relative to the thread can you sumarize your position in a few clear sentences for me? Save me the triuble of gong through all yiur posts.

If at all possible please spare me the 'the left on the forum does not like me'. I equally disdain both the left and the right.

 

[laughing dog]

There is nothing faulty about asking in your opinion who won the 2020 Presidential election - Joe Biden or Donald Trump.

Yes there is.

Whether or not the election was tainted is not relevant to the question I asked.

Yes it is.

Why is it relevant as to which person you think won?

My question does not have any implications about you.

No it does.

Really? What do you think the implications are?

On the otherhand, your question about wife beating does have implication about me. Really, it is a vile question to ask.

It is a classic example of a faulty question, which is why it can be used without people expecting that I actually mean it.

No, it is vile question. It reveals more about the asker than it does about the person to whom it is directed.

Again, if you don't want to answer the simple question, there is no need to respond at all.

I did answer it.

No you did not answer it. You responded with evasion. Either you think Joe Biden won the election, or Donald Trump won the election or that some other person won the election.

One wonders why you bother with these howlers of a response.

Because I'm being falsely accused of not answering a question I did answer. Also because Elixir and Patooka know with certainty that I am not a Trump supporter but insist on calling me one anyway. Why do you think they do it?

First, it is false that you answered my question (see above).
Second, you cannot know what anyone else knows with certainty.
Third, they may have the impression that your posting history of exclusively attacking Democrats and keeping silent about Republicans coupled with your evasion of my simple question may have lead them to conclude you are a Trump supporter. But I am only guessing.

I replied to your question with a clear response that addresses the content of your question in a relevant manner. That is the 2nd question you have asked of me and both times I gave a direct answer. Meanwhile, you have not reciprocated with a clear response that addresses the content of my question of "Who do you think won the 2020 Presidential election - Joe Biden or Donald Trump?". Responses that go on about past elections are non-responsive to the content of the question about the 2020 election. Responses about tainted elections are non-responsive to the content of the question about the 2020 election (tainted or not).

At this point, either you will come up with an honest direct answer or you will continue your MO of stupid evasions.

BTW - your response can be interpreted as a meta-denial of the 2020 Presidential election.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, it is vile question. It reveals more about the asker than it does about the person to whom it is directed.

It would be a vile question were it not a trope. If you were to tell me you had never heard about this classic trope though, I would believe you.

No you did not answer it.

I did, but I used terms you don't understand such as "ballot access laws", "campaign finance laws", and other examples of discrimination against third parties.

You responded with evasion.

You think that because you don't understand the words I used in my answer.

BTW - your response can be interpreted as a meta-denial of the 2020 Presidential election.

Only by the dishonest or unintelligent.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Since you lack any capability of understanding anything but the simplest answer, Biden got more electoral votes than Trump. That's the definition of winning for those who can't see any larger picture. It is the answer for those who need only the simplest of answers, stripped of any nuance, context, or deeper understanding.

 

[Patooka]

36 fucking post was all it took. I stand by my analogy.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is vile question. It reveals more about the asker than it does about the person to whom it is directed.

It would be a vile question were it not a trope. If you were to tell me you had never heard about this classic trope though, I would believe you.

Tropes can be vile. It is vile to imply someone is a wife beater. But I understand why you feel different.

No you did not answer it.

I did, but I used terms you don't understand such as "ballot access laws", "campaign finance laws", and other examples of discrimination against third parties.

I understand that third parties are irrelevant to the question of which person won the election.

 

[laughing dog]

Since you lack any capability of understanding anything but the simplest answer, Biden got more electoral votes than Trump.

My goodness - finally.

That's the definition of winning for those who can't see any larger picture. It is the answer for those who need only the simplest of answers, stripped of any nuance, context, or deeper understanding.

I only ask questions that I think you can handle. And it took you quite some time to get the handle.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, it is vile question. It reveals more about the asker than it does about the person to whom it is directed.

It would be a vile question were it not a trope. If you were to tell me you had never heard about this classic trope though, I would believe you.

Tropes can be vile. It is vile to imply someone is a wife beater. But I understand why you feel different.

So you have never heard of it. It is such a classic that it even has a Wikipedia article.

 Loaded question

No you did not answer it.

I did, but I used terms you don't understand such as "ballot access laws", "campaign finance laws", and other examples of discrimination against third parties.

I understand that third parties are irrelevant to the question of which person won the election.
[/QUOTE]

They are relevant in ways you can't understand.

Since you lack any capability of understanding anything but the simplest answer, Biden got more electoral votes than Trump.

My goodness - finally.

That's the definition of winning for those who can't see any larger picture. It is the answer for those who need only the simplest of answers, stripped of any nuance, context, or deeper understanding.

I only ask questions that I think you can handle. And it took you quite some time to get the handle.

Don't drag me down to your level. I tried to discuss a broader view than you are capable of grasping, and finally realized you needed the simplest of all possible levels.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

36 fucking post was all it took. I stand by my analogy.

Yeah, I answered it like 36 times.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Since you lack any capability of understanding anything but the simplest answer, Biden got more electoral votes than Trump. That's the definition of winning for those who can't see any larger picture. It is the answer for those who need only the simplest of answers, stripped of any nuance, context, or deeper understanding.

I think you are mistaking ridiculously argumentative for nuance.

It would be worth pointing out that your answer actually is still an obstinate reply. It could actually have multiple meanings. We all know Biden "got more electoral votes". Biden also got millions more votes than second place and tens of millions more than any other candidate.

It is also quite something that your take from 2020 was the the two-party system stole the election, when one of the two-parties actually tried to STEAL the election.

*Person A and B driving in car*
Person A: I hate puppy mills, they torture those poor animals.
Person B: Do you know how many insects you are killing with your car right now?

 

[Elixir]

One told me I am entirely wrong on all my postsI have on social issues.

… which you are. But there’s more to life than social issues! (/kiddin’)

Jason agrees that Biden “got” more electoral votes. But won't say he won a free and fair election, because saying that is verboten by his in-group.
I wonder just exactly how he thinks Biden “got” those electoral votes.
Upthread Jason claims the election was "tainted", but won't say by what.
Biden got the same number of electoral votes that Trump did in 2016 - and called it a "landslide" (while losing the popular vote by 3 million), and I have not seen Jason calling Trump's victory "tainted". Biden also royally thumped Trump by over SEVEN MILLION popular votes, so this is a truly glaring question:

HOW WAS BIDEN's 2020 VICTORY "TAINTED", JASON?

We may be witnessing a real live case of "electile dysfunction".

 

[laughing dog]

So you have never heard of it. It is such a classic that it even has a Wikipedia article.

Tropes can be vile. There are plenty of methods to point out a loaded question (which my question was not), but you choose to use a vile trope.

They are relevant in ways you can't understand.

An honest poster interested in elevating honest discussion could have easily responded to the question by "Biden got the most votes in the Electoral College, so he won. But the election was tainted because ........" But, as usual per you MO, you choose to respond with a "nuanced" (sic) answer which allows to you complain that you answered the question but posters are simply unable to rise to your level of analysis. I get it makes you feel better, but you do not grasp how much it diminishing whatever credibility you have. Seriously, I am embarrassed for you when I read such delusional boasting.

 

[Elixir]

Maybe Jason doesn’t know the meaning of the word “tainted”.
Makes you wonder how many other words he’s tossing about without knowing what they mean.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe Jason doesn’t know the meaning of the word “tainted”.
Makes you wonder how many other words he’s tossing about without knowing what they mean.

Jason is upset that our governance system has evolved into a two-party system, which generally has a self-guiding interest in maintaining a two-party system. The trouble, however, for third parties in the US goes beyond that issue of the self-guiding interest of the two main parties with the fact that any serious third party candidate (we haven't had many) is almost always going to take votes from at least one of the parties... making it very hard for voters to justify splitting the vote (see Canada during the Stephen Harper PM run being the result of the liberal vote split between the NDP and Liberal parties).

Jason refuses to recognize this problem and wants every one to concentrate on how the two major parties have managed to create somewhat of a monopoly and sometimes they'll conspire to keep third party candidates out. Which indeed, isn't really fair. But in the main scheme of things... it is also isn't very relevant because... the elephant in the room is partisan vote splitting, which is why the Green Party never managed to become anything of importance. This alone hurts the concept of third parties the most in America. Also, parties like the Green and Reform Parties suffer from lack of experience which allows for people like Pat Buchanan to move their machine into the system and takeover and then dissolve.

 

[steve_bank]

One told me I am entirely wrong on all my postsI have on social issues.

… which you are. But there’s more to life than social issues! (/kiddin’)

Jason agrees that Biden “got” more electoral votes. But won't say he won a free and fair election, because saying that is verboten by his in-group.
I wonder just exactly how he thinks Biden “got” those electoral votes.
Upthread Jason claims the election was "tainted", but won't say by what.
Biden got the same number of electoral votes that Trump did in 2016 - and called it a "landslide" (while losing the popular vote by 3 million), and I have not seen Jason calling Trump's victory "tainted". Biden also royally thumped Trump by over SEVEN MILLION popular votes, so this is a truly glaring question:

HOW WAS BIDEN's 2020 VICTORY "TAINTED", JASON?

We may be witnessing a real live case of "electile dysfunction".

Like I said this is good training for a wanabe politician. y a lot but never say anything you can held accountable for.

When grilled by a reporter and evading a question a polirician will say something like 'I think I have answered your quetion'.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No it isn't an evasion, but you need to have sufficient ability to understand the response.

I asked "who do you think won the 2020 Presidential election - Mr. Biden or Mr. Trump? " It doesn't matter if you think the elections are fair or not. You claim the elections exclude all options is false because the 2020 election offered voters a number of different candidates for POTUS.

It is clear you continue to evade answering that question. You claim to understand it. You claim to have actually answered it. Your posts respond to the question but they do not answer it. There are 3 possible relevant answers: 1) Mr. Biden won the 2020 election, 2) Mr. Trump won the 2020 election, or 3) Neither won the 2020 election.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It is a faulty question. The election was tainted even before the first vote was cast, for reasons I have already explained (many times over the years no less). I don't know why you can't understand that, unless your inability is intentional.

Every election is tainted to some degree. That doesn't change the fact that somebody wins.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Jason: you always attack one side (democrats, Ukraine, Nato, or whatever) then are surprised when people assume that you favor the other side.

There is only one side on this forum, so who am I supposed to argue with?

The only neocon on this forum (a seer of some sorts apparently with a racist screen name) stopped posting regularly, and when he did post he pretended he was the opposite and people fell for the act. The few conservatives on this forum, while not my allies, tend to get banned right quick.

Yea, there aren't many conservatives on this forum. But not many people on the very far left either (like socialists). I remember "Communist Dave" many years ago. Couldn't be a person more opposite of me. But we actually got along. We disagreed but were respectful. But he was banned. The issue here is sometimes those on the more extreme side get very upset and can't argue without making it personal. We disagree a lot, but I'm glad to hear your opinion and hope that you don't go away.

Yup, the people at the extremes rarely can behave themselves when their positions are attacked. In my experience those on the right flame out much faster than those on the left, but both sides have the same problem.

 

[Elixir]

Every election is tainted to some degree.

May be so, but that begs the question of why Jason calls Biden's 7m vote landslide plus electoral victory "tainted", but doesn't call Trump's 3m vote loss with an electoral victory "tainted".
So I am trying to press on to find out where this supposed "taint" is coming from, unless it is coming from between Jason's ears.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, it is vile question. It reveals more about the asker than it does about the person to whom it is directed.

It would be a vile question were it not a trope. If you were to tell me you had never heard about this classic trope though, I would believe you.

Tropes can be vile. It is vile to imply someone is a wife beater. But I understand why you feel different.

But the "have you stopped beating your wife" isn't about vile, it's about questions that assume something to be true.